I have been trying to find a better adjective than stupid. I was thinking of Obama as intelligent but stupid but stupid seems to not to include intelligent in it. Trump, if I recall right, has an IQ at a genius level but acts stupidly.
Here is a dictionary definition of stupid along with synonyms. Maybe dull would work best.

stu·pid (st›“p¹d, sty›“-) adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est. 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Lacking or marked by a lack of intelligence. 3. In a stupor; stupefied. 4. In a dazed or stunned state. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job. --stu·pid n. A person regarded as stupid. [Latin stupidus, from stup¶re, to be stunned.] --stu“pid·ly adv. --stu“pid·ness n.
————————————————————
SYNONYMS: stupid, slow, dumb, dull, obtuse, dense. These adjectives mean lacking or marked by a lack of intellectual acuity. Stupid, the most inclusive, means wanting in intelligence: Despite a lack of formal education, she was far from stupid. Slow and dumb imply chronic sluggishness of perception, reaction, or understanding: The school offers special tutorials for slow learners. It was dumb of him to say yes. Dull suggests a lack of keenness of intellect: “It is the dull man who is always sure” (H.L. Mencken). Obtuse implies a lack of quickness, sensitivity, or perceptiveness: At the time, I was too obtuse to grasp the true implications of her behavior. Dense suggests impenetrability of mind: The woman kept signaling that it was time to leave, but her escort was so dense that he just kept sitting there.

for those of you not familiar with Ms. Grossman, she is the new CEO of The Atlas Society http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou....

Question, somewhat related. What books would you recommend reading to better understand Hume, Kant and Burke. I have read some on Hayek and a lot on Marx would would love to understand there origins a bit better.

I feel the same way where I live. Its still very good, but given a continues shifting of the Oberon window to the more and more "big government camp" it is only a matter of time till that is no longer the case.

Maybe the republican party will collapse and something more small government oriented will come into its place, but I really doubt it. A unified republican party is likely the only option to start to move things back towards smaller government.

Don't that logic lead to no government is needed, and anarchy can ensue?

Do not get the wrong Idea, I am big proponent of the individual and free agency. However I think that people also have to come together to make things happen in a republic, or any self rule form of government. How would you propose to do so if a collective cannot exist and individualists at the same time? or perhaps I am reading to much into your statement.

If the same one always sat at the table with no conversation, the others would come to resent not having a conversation. The friendship would quickly be viewed as not in there best interests...

Conversations over the little things like what table to sit at are required if you wish to have a relationship long term

I've got an idea how about the
constitutional objectivist party
With Jennifer Grossman as the leader.

Even if Trump becomes president, it will probably signal the end of the Republican party. At least as first formulated. It will remain a two party system. The Democrats = Far Left, and the Republicans = Left. There will cease to a right wing in American politics. We're almost there now, all we need is just a wee push that Trump will provide. If, on the other hand Cruz manages to get in, a slow, tortuous movement to the right may occur.

Wouldn't it just require one of them to sit down at a table and the others to decide to sit there too. Personally, I don't see a conversation necessary for this to happen. :)

If each of them wanted to sit with the others of their own free will, they would still have to decide which table to sit at, this would require coordination and collective action.

I wouldn't think they would collectively decide but would objectively decide to sit at the same table if it was in each of their best interests. The decision would be made of their own free will. :)

the Rs are history, and the only question is, IMHO:::
does their future configuration arise from the inside
or the outside. . if someone good like Gary Johnson
can ride up on a white charger ....... -- j
.

This is a very well defined principle in systems engineering and business process reengineering: The Purpose Of a System Is What It Does (POSIWID). Thanks to John Warfield.

they don't want to think. They always tap into feelings. They are taught to do so in school, in church, through patriotism-tribal.

I have argued that I wish fewer people would vote. If just the ones paying attention voted most of the candidates we had this year wouldn't last a week.

Clearly "collective" is a truly bad word in objectivist circles. But the word can have many meanings. It can mean collective ownership of the means of production (Ugh), or collective control of individual actions (Ugh), or free individuals collectively collaborating.

Three objectivists walk into a bar. Can they collectively decide to sit at the same table?

The Founders of the American republic were not fans of political parties, as they served the interest of a powerful elite, rather than the interests of the individuals. Populists often create a disconnect within established parties by running a campaign of ideas that threaten the established leadership. Often, these populists run on a single issue, like William Jennings Bryan, on the evils of the gold standard, but sometimes they run simply in rebellion against the incompetence of the establishment, like Donald Trump.

The question that has to be asked is whether or not there should be a law against the existence of political parties. Chaos would undoubtedly ensue, for a time, as well as challenges under the 1st amendment, which I think would fail if justices adhered to the original intent. The defense is that people would not have been denied the right to peacefully assemble. There is no constitutional right to form political parties.

After such an act, candidates for election would still have to have the backing of either a few powerful parties, or a large mass of the people. By depriving the candidate of a mass market label, the reality of their campaign positions would have to stand closer scrutiny.

Altruism sets a goal which is impossible to meet, thus those who accept it will fail by definition. Then the church or government can tell them they are evil and they accept it and become submissive.

All that shows is how stupid people are

Unfortunately, our system will elect one of the candidates.

I am an inventor and I love to find new solutions to problems of living. But, I fantasize winning the lottery and just doing inventions for the fun of it and NOT commercializing them any more for the benefit of the statists who tax me and stand in my way. Its hard to be an inventor and "shrug" unless you are already wealthy. Inventing these days often involves buying advanced equipment, hiring assistants, and such.

I do think Trump is running a very effective campaign. He is stoking the anger each group is feeling. He'll probably do the same in a general election. Interesting times we live in.

Are any of the other choices electable either? You are correct that he is not remotely electable. None of the above would win this year.

NOT REMOTELY ELECTABLE

Gary Johnson